list_domains

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses zero behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what authentication or permissions are needed, or what the response format looks like. The description carries the full burden but provides nothing beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (two words), which makes it technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. There is no structure, no separation of concerns, and no information beyond the literal tool name. It fails to use the available space to add value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent has no idea what the tool returns, how to filter results, or what the required parameters actually represent. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 input parameters (3 of which are required). Parameters like repository_id, target_commit, and scope_id are left completely undefined. With no parameter documentation in either the schema or the description, an agent cannot correctly populate the inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'list domains' restates the tool name almost verbatim, providing no additional specificity about what 'domains' refers to in this system. It fails to distinguish the tool from sibling list operations like list_scopes or list_concepts, which are clearly related. The purpose is implied but not clarified.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, required prerequisites, or scenarios where another listing tool would be more appropriate. An agent would have to guess based on the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.